Cisco and the tobacco industry

Fri Jul 29 01:59:57 UTC 2005

On 7/28/05 4:29 PM, "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow at mci.com>
wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Geo. wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Jared,
>> 
>> Have you ever actually tried to get the updates using this method? It really
>> does take the better part of a week and no less than half a dozen emails or
>> phone calls and then there is the begging...
> 
> if it's critical to your business you'd think you'd have a support
> contract for it, eh? (or you decided that the 'better part of a week' and
> associated risk was an acceptable cost to your business)
> 
> ('you' in the royal sense, not 'you geo')
> 

Software has bugs. Deal with it. Sometimes you have to pay for updates to
fix those bugs. If you don't like it, find another vendor. Except - all
vendors do that, don't they? Well, I guess if your business model isn't
compatible with purchasing support contracts on vital gear, you may not have
a viable business. YMMV.

Cisco's conduct in this case may or may not be improper - we'll have to wait
for a little more information. From a PR point of view, they probably should
have let things ride and allowed the Blackhat talk to occur. They look like
bullies now, which is never good. Hindsight is 20/20, though.

That being said, their policy of offering free updates for certain bug fixes
to those who don't pay them for support is generous. See that hand feeding
you? Don't bite it.

-- 
Daniel Golding